Aemilius wrote:The definitions of magic add various elements, mere volition or mental act doesn't constitute magic as such. There is very little in the definition of magic in the wikipedia article, and it's polish version is non-existent. Further inquiry into the forms of magic mentioned in wikipedia tell us more what it really is.Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic An example: you may go jogging with the intention and wish of becoming healthy and of remaining in good health. Jogging is not seen normally as a magical operation.

This isn't hugely important in terms of dharma, but I'd define magic as the deliberate use of non-local action.

As many have said, faith in one's guru, meditative stability, and regular deity & guardian practice absolutely protects against all real black magic, which is anyway quite rare.

That leads to the further question: what is "non-local action"?

Interaction or information exchange between not obviously connected systems.

"Non-local action" is a good expression, it covers such instances of magical influencing as TV-news and the like. TV-news creates a believable image of events, and this image affects the actual events and actual persons on the spot where the news-event has taken place. Magical or non-local influencing can actually change the perceivable reality. Especially, as TV-news are believed by hundred millions of people, it can change and affect reality.Often the people, who by chance know what actually took place, become alienated from their own experience. But it depends, some people are used to the artificial or synthetic reality, and some are not. The social control usually demands that all normal and good people accept the TV-news as truth, i.e. that certain persons must give up their own experience of truth.It is not the electromagnetic signals but peoples minds and their mental formations.

Aemilius wrote:"Non-local action" is a good expression, it covers such instances of magical influencing as TV-news and the like. TV-news creates a believable image of events, and this image affects the actual events and actual persons on the spot where the news-event has taken place. Magical or non-local influencing can actually change the perceivable reality. Especially, as TV-news are believed by hundred millions of people, it can change and affect reality.Often the people, who by chance know what actually took place, become alienated from their own experience. But it depends, some people are used to the artificial or synthetic reality, and some are not. The social control usually demands that all normal and good people accept the TV-news as truth, i.e. that certain persons must give up their own experience of truth.It is not the electromagnetic signals but peoples minds and their mental formations.

There is no complete equation, they have their own histories and their own roles in human society. If something actually works, it is natural that its principles will be applied in very different fields of life and of human existence. There is a fundamental blindness or self-importance in buddhist tantrism, and in buddhist esotericism in the case of the nontantric schools. This basic ignorance/self-importance prevents you from seeing that it exists everywhere.

Aemilius wrote:There is no complete equation, they have their own histories and their own roles in human society. If something actually works, it is natural that its principles will be applied in very different fields of life and of human existence. There is a fundamental blindness or self-importance in buddhist tantrism, and in buddhist esotericism in the case of the nontantric schools. This basic ignorance/self-importance prevents you from seeing that it exists everywhere.

I'm not a Buddhist or a tantrika, so any such blindness wouldn't affect my judgment.We'll just have to disagree on this matter.

I wouldn't equate magic with siddhi per se. I read this page from Reynolds some time ago and don't completely agree with his terminology although the information is correct beyond that. The thing is that in western traditions magic is something done essentially "at will" often through rituals but siddhi is not bestowed or acquired at will at all.

I wouldn't equate magic with siddhi per se. I read this page from Reynolds some time ago and don't completely agree with his terminology although the information is correct beyond that. The thing is that in western traditions magic is something done essentially "at will" often through rituals but siddhi is not bestowed or acquired at will at all.

Kirt

My understanding is that siddhi are yogic attainments with no parallels (as far as I know) in non-Indic religious traditions whereas magic refers to non-local information transfer, usually by ritual, and is found in many traditions including Buddhism.

I wouldn't equate magic with siddhi per se. I read this page from Reynolds some time ago and don't completely agree with his terminology although the information is correct beyond that. The thing is that in western traditions magic is something done essentially "at will" often through rituals but siddhi is not bestowed or acquired at will at all.

Kirt

My understanding is that siddhi are yogic attainments with no parallels (as far as I know) in non-Indic religious traditions whereas magic refers to non-local information transfer, usually by ritual, and is found in many traditions including Buddhism.

Where does this term originate from? It is a ridiculous descriptor for magic. And why "non-local"? Cannot magic be "on the spot"? Exorcisms (for example) are pretty damn "local".

Hmmmm... I think non-locality is properly a term used in physics to attempt to understand non-intuitive microscopic phenomena like entanglement. I can't tell you where I first heard the term used to describe magical action; probably one of the occult circles I used to hang out in during my misspent youth. Certainly one thing I learned in those circles was that there are multiple possible definitions of magical phenomena.

@Kirt - In Tibetan Buddhism, isn't the word "siddhi" at least sometimes used to refer to magical activities accomplished through ritual? If that's not the case then I agree with your critique of Reynolds' essay.

M.G. wrote:Hmmmm... I think non-locality is properly a term used in physics to attempt to understand non-intuitive microscopic phenomena like entanglement. I can't tell you where I first heard the term used to describe magical action; probably one of the occult circles I used to hang out in during my misspent youth. Certainly one thing I learned in those circles was that there are multiple possible definitions of magical phenomena.

Non-locality:

In physics, nonlocality or action at a distance is the direct interaction of two objects that are separated in space with no intermediate agency or mechanism. Regarding the unexplained nature of gravity, Isaac Newton (1642-1727) considered action-at-a-distance "so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it". Quantum nonlocality refers to what Einstein called the "spooky action at a distance" of quantum entanglement.

M.G. wrote:Hmmmm... I think non-locality is properly a term used in physics to attempt to understand non-intuitive microscopic phenomena like entanglement. I can't tell you where I first heard the term used to describe magical action; probably one of the occult circles I used to hang out in during my misspent youth. Certainly one thing I learned in those circles was that there are multiple possible definitions of magical phenomena.

Non-locality:

In physics, nonlocality or action at a distance is the direct interaction of two objects that are separated in space with no intermediate agency or mechanism. Regarding the unexplained nature of gravity, Isaac Newton (1642-1727) considered action-at-a-distance "so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it". Quantum nonlocality refers to what Einstein called the "spooky action at a distance" of quantum entanglement.

Sounds right. I think the idea is that, assuming one believes magic works beyond the realm of mundane psychology, we don't really understand or know how to precisely measure the intermediary agency which connects a ritual action with the desired effect.

M.G. wrote:@Kirt - In Tibetan Buddhism, isn't the word "siddhi" at least sometimes used to refer to magical activities accomplished through ritual? If that's not the case then I agree with your critique of Reynolds' essay.

Yes it is. Additionally there are practices for mundane purposes which can only be described as magic (mundane spirit entities are asked to accomplish something). Additionally Tsongkhapa wrote a text for attaining siddhi translated into English as "Yoga Tantra: Paths To Magical Feats". My objection to the Reynolds page is just that there was no distinction made between a western conception of magic (often involving spirit entities doing something and being possibly coercive [do this and this and spirits have no choice but to cause the result]) and siddhi.

The standard buddhist teaching in the Sutras and in Abhidharma is that the basis for the miraculous powers is the attainment of the fourth dhyana, and the ability to enter the fourth dhyana at will. Then if you look at the Four Rddhipada or Four Bases of Magical Power, there certainly is something that looks like concentration of will, -albeit there are very different translations of these four factors, in different sources. There is a selection of Pali sources for the Four Bases of Magical Abilities in Thanissaro Bhikkhu's Wings of Awakening. Abhidharmakosha also mentions this topic.